The shots fired at point blank range which wounded three workers from the company BTP on 18 February in an estate in Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, were the trigger. Seine-Saint-Denis police headquarters, which had been alerted several times about the attacks on urban renewal construction sites in the district, finally reacted. The judicial police was ordered to mount an enquiry, the police held a meeting with the company on 26 February, a second meeting is scheduled between the police commissioner and the elected representatives of several towns that have fallen victim to the phenomenon. It is long overdue: this is the third serious attack in three months that has taken place in the district. Everyone involved speaks of an escalation of violence in relation to the urban renewal construction sites.

The Pierrefitte, in this district with the delicate name of City of the Poets, was particularly traumatic. On the video filmed by the surveillance cameras, a fat man, wearing a helmet and cagoule, enters the Algeco where he gets ready and opens fire on the workers four or five times before fleeing on a scooter, according to their employer, Coredif, a public works company. The construction site manager and a driver were wounded in the leg and hospitalised. "We're used to insults and threats but this is the first time it has reached that level of violence", declares Ali Gök, managing director of the company BTP.

In this same estate, in December 2012, two attacks - a theft of a computer and mobile phone, plus a fire of two of the work machines - had revealed the resumption of tension around this council housing construction site. And two years ago, the first part of this renovation project had been the scene of a organised crime racket: four "jeunes" were arrested and three jailed for extortion of five construction companies, including Coredif, the company targeted again

With 42 billion being invested in construction work, since it started in 2003, urban renewal has been a boom for the districts. The pressures on the renewal construction sites have always existed inasmuch as the latter constitute high stakes for the street capos: get certain people hired or take a cut from the construction site material is commonplace. And the companies have incorporated it into their budgets.

But the blackmail has changed in scale. For several months now, the tensions and intimidations have become systematic and more violent. "It has taken on worrying proportions and it has become a very organised system like we see in Corsica", declares Stéphane Peu, president of the Plaine residential community, council housing department. It is rare, however, for companies to file a complaint. Out of concern for their employees. And also because urban renewal being vital for their order books, they prefer to pay. "As long as it doesn't affect the employees, the companies don't talk about it and prefer to arrange things," acknowledges Francis Dubrac, director of a public works company and former boss of the local MEDEF [Chamber of Commerce].

...In October 2012, in the Karl-Marx[!] estate in the centre of Bobigny, a worker was struck several times with a hammer. Two weeks later, some "jeunes" again seriously threatened the workers. The work site was shut down.

In Francs-Moisins in Saint-Denis, on 30 January, it was also under the threat of a blade that two individuals made a worker get down from his digger. Work machines burnt or workers harassed, the month of January was particularly violent on the construction sites of Saint-Denis. The companies are also subject to systematic racketeering. In one district, it's a "local" security company that the street capos advise to hire to guard the equipment. The declared cost: 150 euros per night to protect a tarring machine.

In another district, the company was forced to change all the windows in 450 houses. "The racketeers collected 80,000 euros after reselling the frames to a metal dealer," says one elected representative. The names of the cities are not mentioned, "for the safety of the employees", says the town council. Even the lighting companies have taken precautionary measures and only work "from 5 in the morning, when the dealers go to bed, till noon, when they get up," says one local boss. Because the reprisals have become more violent: "They don't scratch the cars or puncture the tires, they shoot at you," says one assistant.

The companies that are victimised by this blackmail don't want to testify. Neither Vinci, Eiffage, Bouygues, nor ISS Espaces verts "want to discuss this subject". The politicians have also long been silent. Stéphane Peu acknowledges it: "From the police to the bosses via the letting companies and the politicians, everyone has closed their eyes. We need to react and offer a real police and judicial response when faced with these mafia tendencies."

Christer: the mafia began in Sicily as an outgrowth of the Black Hand and Sicily had been under Moslem domination for centuries. The structure of the mafia and its emphasis on 'honour' (amongst thieves) and 'the family' (i.e. 'umma' in Arabic) are hints as to its roots.

My ancestors participated in the struggle against Adolf Hitler. The fact that you ludicrously believe that they inherit some of his guilt even though they fought against him demonstrates clearly the malignant anti-European hatred that lurks within your mind. It is the direct moral equivalent of antisemitism, which makes you a repellent hypocrite.

Pretty much every country on earth, other than the USA and maybe Canada to some extent, strongly influenced by the USA, buys the Palestinian narrative, not just Europeans. So you don't have to fantasise about European Jew hatred to explain why Europeans take the position that they do on the Middle East conflict. The fact that you can't see that, and the fact that you take malicious delight in the destruction of another people, shows that you don't care about any people other than your own. So why should you expect us to?

Look at yourself, little Jew. I always found antisemitism a bit mysterious before, but after reading some of the gloating anti-European hatred posted by self-proclaimed Jews on comments to this website, it has become much easier for me to understand.

I made some points, in comments on other articles on this site, which relate in part to the issue which has arisen on this one, that of 'group guilt'. This concept comes from Judaism in which it is said that 'the sins of the father {are/be} upon the sons, unto the seventh generation." As I mentioned earlier, such a concept diminishes the role of the individual's own actions, and the individual's conscience and, most pertinently, it places to one side the concept of repentance and, thus, salvation. The Jews were first chosen by God Who made a Covenant with them (which requires participation by both parties, God and Man). That Covenant was enlarged through Christ Who speaks of 'fulfilling', not destroying, that Covenant and, as Paul later says, "The Law is fulfilled in Love" {it is a misunderstanding to think that 'fulfilling the Law' ,which is given to mankind as a result of man's sins, means adhering to Law to the utmost}, and Christ adds to the Commandments that people should love one another. Contrast this with the words of Mohamed who, upon asking Jews what their Law required as punishment for adulterers {stoning as in the Torah}, said to the Jews who placed their hands over the Law and said only that they named and whipped the adulterers, that he, Mohamed, "was the first to fulfill the Law" and ordered the adulterers to be stoned. Jesus had saved the adulteress by calling her would-be stoners to examine their own INDIVIDUAL consciences, and then had said to her to "Henceforth, go, and sin no more."

Those Jews who accepted this New Covenant became Christ's followers; those who did not remain Jews and still under the unfulfilled Law; this also means that Judaism retains Talmudic teachings which emphasise a negative relationship to "others."

'anti-semitism', as with so many modern expressions ('racism', 'islamophobia,' 'homophobia,' 'natiionalism,' 'xenophobia' etc) sets up barriers to open debate and attempts to deny that there are legitimate objections to an issue. There are aspects of Talmudic Judaism which create and foster a lamentable tension between peoples. We are constantly taught, for example, that Jews were resented in the Middle Ages in Europe because of their business dealings and that the 'reason' for this was that financial dealings were denied to Christians and/or Jews were particularly well-suited for finance because of their admirable emphasis upon education (resulting from being a people who revered the written word). This, however, ignores a disturbing reality of Talmudic teaching which was that, while a Jew was forbidden to practise usury in dealings with another Jew, it was permissible to do so with non-Jews, the only caveat being that such usury should not become excessive for fear that this might encourage such usury practices to be applied amongst Jews to one another. Clearly, such a view encourages a skewered moral view. This teaching was in place centuries before Christianity. My original interest in this subject came from my considering whether or not there might be some teachings of Judaism which could have influenced Islamic teachings (Sharia law, for example) because, as with Christ, so too, Mohamed's first followers also included Jews.

I honestly believe that one of the reasons why our response to Islam is so inadequate and muted is because we fail to discuss theology, on all sides, and how it effects and impacts upon our lack of knowledge of the true nature of the problem.

JAt a World Council meeting in New York in 1933 the Jews declared war on Germany. They werent happy that Germany had taken steps to reduce the stranglehold they had on that country. But lets go back to WW1 shall we, that stalemate was un nesecarily prolonged - and another 1.5 million Whites were killed because the Jews struck a deal with the Brits to bring America into the War in return for the Balfour Decalartion. And Germany was very nearly killed off alrogether by the provisions of the Versailles "treaty". And who started the Second World War against White People, because it wasnt Germany that declared war it was Britain and France, this is after the British Ambassador to Germany (who hated Germans) reluctantly reported to his government superiors that the German proposals put to Poland were "fair and reasonable".New York Jews financed and ran the Russian revolution - result sixty million murdered "Soviet" Christians.Why do so many jews push the multiculture, it caould be said that without the enthusiastic endorsement of so many libtard jews there would be no multiculti third world invasion - many Jews have stated on the public record that "jews need to weaken the White Christians so that Jews will never again have to fear a repeat of the holocaust" - whether or not the numbers are as claimed the net effect on the White countries is a kind of genocide that exceeds any other in all of history. Many Jewish leaders have said they will be much happier living under a muslim controlled West - in fact some of them welcome this.For the Whites jews insist on a poisonous universalism turning the White countries brown but for the Jews themselves its business as usual - out breeding is most definitely not encouraged. When Europe is overun with non Whites Africa will still be 100% Black. Pakistan and India will look exactly as they do now, China will still be 100% Chinese. Its only the White countries that are targeted and at leading the charge are the Jews. Are we Whites supposed to cheer?

What should Jews feel? Jews should be capable of grasping that the summary of Jewish-European interaction you offer, namely centuries of persecution, is overly simplistic. There were times and places where Jews lived perfectly contentedly in Europe. They should also be capable of moving past notions of inherited guilt, crudely ascribed on the basis of privitive generlisations like "European". And they should be capable of looking beyond the narrow interests and experience of Jews to attempt to arrive at a more nuanced and objective moral judgement.

It is documented historically that, in the struggle between Christendom and Islam, Jews sometimes collaborated with the Muslim invaders against the Christians. Applying your hateful logic, Europeans would be perfectly entitled to say, "Jews have been betraying Christians for centuries. Therefore we're entitled to feel malignant hatred towards them and gloat at their destruction."

The fact is that almost all minorities in almost all countries have been persecuted at some time in history. The Jewish experience is exceptional only in that you lost your own home, therefore lived as wanderers in other people's countries. All people who lose their home end up living at the mercy of others, and therefore will experience persecution periodically. The lesson to draw from Jewish history is, "What a terrible thing it is for a people to lose their home".

But that is not the lesson many Jews draw from it. Many Jewish organisations are involved in promoting open-borders immigration and multiculturalist policies the net effect of which is to cause Europeans to lose their homes and, ultimately, all the peoples of the earth if these ideas are consistently applied.

Jews are non-European in origin. If they didn't like the way they would be treated in Europe, they shouldn't have come here. If, having come here, they didn't like it, they should have left. Going to live in someone else's country then nurturing a malignant hatred for them is no more morally acceptable from Jews than it is from Muslims.

Incidentally, your notion of being bound by treaty removing any element of moral choice is absurd. Britain violated many treaty obligations in the 1930s alone. Nor was the extermination of the Jews generally known at the time Britain went to war and stood alone against Hitler. Nor had the Final Solution even begun then.

I repeat: your anti-European hatred is the moral equivalent of antisemitism. In expressing it, you forfeit any claim to the moral high ground and legitimate countervailing and equivalent expressions of antisemitism. If your vision of the future of the world is one where we express malignant hatred for one another based on ideas of inherited guilt, and openly gloat, or attempt to bring about, one another's destruction, then it is a sterile one, and one in which Jews are not likely to flourish.

"They should also be capable of moving past notions of inherited guilt, crudely ascribed on the basis of privitive generlisations like "European". And they should be capable of looking beyond the narrow interests and experience of Jews to attempt to arrive at a more nuanced and objective moral judgement."

To understand why the present response to Islam is so inadequate, one must consider the remark of one of the best-known blog sites on the Islamic threat (who is strongly pro-Jewish) that at least 50% of the self-styled 'counter jihad' are Jewish. It would help if people read up on theology; if so, it would become clear that the Babylonian Talmud of Judaism (as distinct from the Torah and the Jerusalem Talmud) may very well have been the progenitor of Islam because it expresses so many views, values and tenets which one finds in a proper study of Islam.

For example: in the concept of the 'other' (shared by Islam) there is expressed the view that the non-Jew is not fully human and does not possess the cleanliness of the Jew because the non-Jew is more akin to an animal. In Islam, the non-Moslem is termed in the Koran 'innately unclean' and likened in the Tafsir to urine, faces, sweat, blood, pigs and dogs (in the Koran also the Jews are likened to apes/monkeys and the Christians to pigs). The Jew is permitted to lie to non-Jews, as the Moslem is to non-Moslems; the non-Jew is to serve the Jew, to pay a tax to live in a secondary status among Jews and, if refusing to do so, may incur warfare against himself (this is entirely in line with the Islamic mandate in Hadith Muslim except that the Jewish view does not require conversion. Both ideologies have the view that their members are superior to all others.Both have beliefs in devils, genies, witches, the occult, all of which Christianity speaks against as Satanic and separating man from God. Any Jew revealing Talmudic details to a non-Jew deserves death since revealing it would make the 'gentile' or 'goyim' angry and prove risky for the Jew. In Talmudic Judaism there is acceptance of paedophilia, a female child of three years and one day may be 'married' to an adult male and an adult female may have sex with a boy under the age of nine. This is comparable to Islam which actually has no minimum age for 'marriage' and the example of Mohamed's 'marriage' to six year old Aisha and the 'consummation' of that marriage when she was nine although the Hadiths also mention the sexual abuse of 'thighing' done to her when she was 'too small' as the Hadiths say for full penetrative sex. This is only a selection, in addition to the point made in an earlier comment above about usury. Then there is the notion that to kill one life is to kill all humanity and to save one life is likened to save all humanity (I'm paraphrasing); this is often used when highlighting the Koran's text which quotes this but then goes on to state that all who disobey allah and its prophet face death or exile. In the Babylonian Talmud the actual verse is "whoever preserves a single son of Israel, it is as if he has preserved an entire world" which is in line with the notion of the Jew as the only one who is fully human. I think we have quite a problem on our hands and to acknowledge it is NOT to encourage or condone a violent reaction, but it should be taken account of when choosing our associates, our tactics and our hoped-for goals in facing the challenges of conflicting ideologies.

It also should be understood from the above that in the New Testament, Christ is speaking AGAINST the 'mishnah' (the earliest version of the Babylonian Talmud) and AGAINST the Talmud's supporters, the Scribes and the Pharisees. Christianity does not have these negative, exclusive and destructive tenets and His words, that He has come "to save the lost sheep of Israel" are even clearer when one knows these facts, especially His comment against those who seek to harm children.

" it would become clear that the Babylonian Talmud of Judaism (as distinct from the Torah and the Jerusalem Talmud) may very well have been the progenitor of Islam because it expresses so many views, values and tenets which one finds in a proper study of Islam."

To the Anonymous whom I presume is the one who has engaged in ad hominem attacks throughout this comment thread, would you care to discuss the Babylonian Talmud and also the Koran, Hadiths and Islamic law? When a commenter is incapable of engaging in discussion and can only cast puerile aspersions on others, we are all entitled to conclude that he/she/it has no cogent line of argument.